9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 676 - AT - Income TaxApplication for condonation of delay of 1163 days Asseessee contended that the delay was because of the massive change in the taxation department of assessee Company - Held that - In Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (supra), the Hon ble 2001 (7) TMI 117 - SUPREME Court it has been held that in exercising discretion u/s 5 of the Limitation Act the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach - no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard - The court has to exercise the discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression sufficient cause , the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance - the appeal has been filed by delay of 1163 days and as per affidavit he joined post of Manager-Taxation on 29.02.2009 and while culling out the details/information in connection with filing of appeal against the order of the CIT(A) levying penalty in respect of proceedings u/s 147 for AY 2002- 03 - he found four sets of draft appeal documents for AY 2002-03 - condonation application has been submitted by his predecessors i.e. Mr. Suresh Chawla and Mr. Rohit Bhatla who were working as AVP Taxation and Manager Taxation respectively and left the assessee company in October 2007 and January 2007 respectively but the appeal could not be filed on time, therefore, delay was caused. There is an extraordinary delay of 1163 days in filing this appeal for which assessee has to show sufficient cause but the cause shown by the assessee may be considered a sufficient cause for the intervening period when old officers left or parted with the company and till new Manager Taxation Mr. Hemant Gupta joined, meaning thereby from October 2007 to 29.2.2008, but there was no sufficient cause which could justify or properly explain the delay which occurred from last date of filing the appeal as per statutory provisions of the Act to departure of Shri Suresh Chawla AVP Taxation i.e. from 17.6.2006 to October 2007 and from joining of Mr. Hemant K. Gupta Manager Taxation to the date of filing this appeal i.e. from 29.2.2008 to 12.8.2009. From impugned order of the CIT(A) dated 30.3.2006. The date on which Mr. Hemant Kumar Gupta found relevant papers in a file folder is neither mentioned in the application for condonation of delay nor in the affidavit of Mr. Gupta - sufficient cause as shown by the assessee is not acceptable and if such kind of extraordinary delay is condoned without any sufficient cause, then the provisions of prescribed limitation period would become otiose and infructuous thus, the assessee miserably failed in establishing and substantiating sufficient cause , as required by the statutory provisions of the Act, for the extraordinary delay of 1163 days delay not condoned Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Assessment of "sufficient cause" for the delay. 3. Judicial discretion in condoning delays. 4. Applicability of precedents from the Supreme Court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Application for Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: The appellant assessee filed an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the CIT(A) order dated 30.03.2006, which was received on 19.04.2006. The appeal was filed on 11.08.2009, resulting in a delay of 1163 days. The appellant argued that the delay was due to internal organizational changes and inadvertent misplacement of documents. 2. Assessment of "Sufficient Cause" for the Delay: The appellant's counsel submitted that the delay was caused due to the departure of key personnel in the taxation department and the subsequent discovery of the misplaced documents by the new Manager-Taxation, Mr. Hemant Kumar Gupta. The counsel relied on the affidavit of Mr. Gupta, which detailed the sequence of events leading to the delay. The counsel also cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil and Collector, Land Acquisition vs MST. Katiji and Others, emphasizing a liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause" to advance substantial justice. 3. Judicial Discretion in Condoning Delays: The respondent's counsel argued that the delay of 1163 days was extraordinary and required day-to-day explanation, which the appellant failed to provide. The respondent cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Chief Postmaster General and Others vs Living Media India Ltd. And Another and Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS vs Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project, emphasizing that negligence and lack of diligence on the appellant's part could not be excused. 4. Applicability of Precedents from the Supreme Court: The tribunal considered the precedents cited by both parties. It noted that in Vedabai and MST. Katiji, the delays were minimal (7 and 4 days respectively), and the Supreme Court had emphasized a liberal approach in those cases. However, in the present case, the delay was 1163 days, which the tribunal found to be inordinate. The tribunal also noted that the appellant failed to provide a specific date when Mr. Gupta discovered the misplaced documents, weakening the "sufficient cause" argument. Conclusion: The tribunal concluded that the appellant had not shown "sufficient cause" for the extraordinary delay of 1163 days. It held that the delay was due to the appellant's negligence and lack of diligence, and condoning such a delay would render the statutory limitation period meaningless. The tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, referencing the Supreme Court's decisions in Chief Postmaster General and Pundlik Jalam Patil as applicable to the present case. Order: The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 13.11.2014.
|
